Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter XIII 1923
************************************************
Copyright. All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 25, 2004, 11:54 pm
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SAVANNAH ANTI-DUELLING ASSOCIATION
PROMINENT CITIZENS UNITED IN MOVEMENT TO CHECK THE INCREASING PRACTICE OF
DUELLING BY EDUCATION OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND THE INVOKING OF THE LAW WHEN
REQUIRED—COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION A FEATURE OF THE ASSOCIATION'S WORK—ITS
ANNIVERSARY ORATORS—OUTCOME OF DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN MILLEN AND POOLER, KERR AND
GUERARD, BLANE AND McKENZIE, ROSSIGNOL AND GUERARD, BOURKE AND ARNOLD—KILLING OF
STARKE BY MINIS, AND STILES BY MORRISON—BENJAMIN EDWARD STILES TURNS DOWN
CHALLENGE FROM JOSEPH FAY —HOW FORMER JUDGE LAW, ACTIVE IN THE ASSOCIATION'S
WORK, STOOD READY IN LATER YEARS TO RESENT AN INSULT ON THE FIELD OF HONOR.
A blow, an intimation of dishonesty, a reflection on veracity, a sharp
difference of opinion on a political issue, an accusation of cheating at cards,
an insinuation of unchastity on the part of a woman—these and other offences of
less magnitude constituted the provocations that justified challenges.
So frequent had become the duels in Savannah, and so rampant the spirit that
encouraged and prompted hostile meetings as a means of settling personal
disputes, even though the actual fatalities were rare, that a determined and
concerted effort was felt to be necessary in order to educate public opinion
against duelling, and gradually lead to the abandonment of the practice of
resorting to the pistol or rifle when politics or other cause of estrangement
changed erstwhile friends into temporary enemies. To this end a meeting of
citizens was held in the Long Room of the City Exchange on December 26, 1826.
Perhaps the Christmas spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" may have
played its part in bringing about the gathering.
A number of clergymen and prominent men of affairs attended. Dr. George
Jones, who was probably mainly instrumental in calling the meeting, was chosen
as chairman, and Joseph Gumming as secretary. The constitution of the recently
organized Charleston Anti-Duelling Association was read and it was resolved that
the chairman should call another meeting of all interested citizens on January
1. The advertisement for this meeting said:
"It is presumed that there will be but one opinion as to the propriety and
necessity of such an association and therefore a full attendance is expected."
The second meeting was largely attended. Judge William Davies was called to
the chair, Rev. S. B. Howe, pastor of the Independent Presbyterian Church,
delivered an address on the general subject of duelling and moved the formation
of an association for "the purpose of restraining and, if possible, suppressing
the practice of duelling." This was seconded by Mr. William B. Bulloch and
adopted, and to draft the constitution the following committee was appointed:
Rev. S. B. Howe, Rev. Abiel Carter, of Christ Church, Rev. Henry 0. Wyer, of the
First Baptist Church, Dr. James B. Read, William B. Bulloch, Anthony Barclay,
Thomas Young, William Law.
The constitution as adopted set forth that the subscribers "considered the
practice of duelling as a violation of all law, both human and divine, as
hostile to the peace and good order of society, and as destructive to the
happiness of domestic life, and being desirous of checking and if possible
suppressing so serious an evil, do agree to associate together for the purpose
as the Savannah Anti-Duelling Association."
It was further provided, as probably the most important feature of the work
laid out for the Association, that a committee of seven should be appointed
which "should endeavor by seasonable and friendly interposition, with or without
the aid of the civil magistracy, as may seem to them most expedient, to prevent
the occurrence of any contemplated or appointed duel, of which they may have
information or well founded apprehensions, to procure from time to time the
publication of any such essays' or papers against duelling as they may deem
calculated to operate for the correction of the error of the prevalent opinion
on the subject, and .in general to adopt all prudent, honorable and legal
measures for lessening as much as possible the frequency of the practice in this
community, and gradually effecting its entire suppression."
All members of the Association were to give to its standing committee any
information or intimation of duels which came to them. By mediation it was hoped
to bring about amicable adjustments. If that failed, then recourse was evidently
to be had to the law to prevent meetings, if possible.
Essays against duelling were to be printed in the local papers, and. as a
matter of fact, several were printed, painting in glowing language the evils
resulting from the custom, and pointing out wherein duelling violated the laws
of God and of the State. The annual meeting was to be held on the second Tuesday
in January of each year, at which time a suitable address was to be delivered by
an orator selected the year before. As the orator for the first annual
gathering, Anthony Barclay, prominent as a merchant and literateur, was selected.
On January 9 a third meeting was held at which officers were elected for the
Association, as follows:
President, Dr. George Jones.
Vice-presidents, Wm. B. Bulloch, William Davies.
Secretary and Treasurer, C. W. Rockwell, merchant and bank president, who
removed North and was appointed United States Commissioner of Customs by
President Taylor.
Standing Committee, Anthony Barclay, A. B. Fannin, William Law, Alexander
Telfair, Benjamin Edward Stiles, Richard F. Williams, Joseph Gumming.
This staff of officers made a highly representative group of the best
Savannahians of that day.
No one ever stood higher in the community than he who was chosen to head the
Association, and who apparently continued its president throughout its life. Dr.
George Jones, son of the patriotic Dr. Noble Wymberly Jones, had a long life of
public usefulness. He was a member of the Georgia Constitutional Convention of
1798. He served as an alderman of the city in 1793-94,1802-03, 1814-15, and as
mayor in 1812-14. In 1804, although not a lawyer, so much confidence was felt in
his strong common sense and high sense of justice between man and man, that he
was appointed Judge of the Superior Court and served with entire satisfaction to
the public for four years. In 1807 he filled for a few months an unexpired term
in the United States Senate. A noble type of unselfish manhood, his interest in
the Anti-Duelling Association arose from a strong conviction of the curse the
custom had been to his State, and he was unceasing in his efforts to broaden and
strengthen the influence of the Association. Deeply concerned in the injuries
wrought by intoxicants, he also became president of the Savannah Temperance
Association.
At the first anniversary meeting held in January, 1828, a prize of $50, or a
gold medal, was offered for the best essay on duelling. A committee was
appointed to pass on the essays submitted, composed of John Cumming, James M.
Wayne, Richard W. Habersham, William Law, Matthew Hall McAllister. The prize was
to be awarded at the next annual meeting and Matthew Hall McAllister was
selected as the orator for that occasion. McAllister was winning recognition as
a lawyer and public speaker and as a man of broad culture. His oration in 1829
was evidently replete with historical allusions and dealt with the subject in a
most forceful way. The editor of "The Georgian" honored him with a special
comment: He could not agree with McAllister, the editor said, "in reference to
his strictures upon the remarks made by the biographer of Charles V, relative to
duelling, and must still continue to think that the vice of duelling now sought
to be suppressed is a relic of chivalry, though moldering and decayed; that the
spirit of chivalry in it was probably corrupted, like every other channel of
thought or of feeling, through the influence of Italian morals, which then ruled
the court, the camp and the grove throughout the whole of Europe, engendering
deceit, exciting a feverish thirst for revenge, and creating a strong
disposition toward the coarsest licentiousness everywhere."
The Chatham Artillery attended this anniversary meeting in a body, "dressed
in their new and splendid uniforms." The gold medal for the best essay was
awarded to William Jay, of Bedford, N. Y. William Law was selected to deliver
the third anniversary address.
Whether it was due to the influence of the Anti-Duelling Association is not
clear, but it is quite apparent that for several years after its organization
there was a lull in the hostile meetings. It may have been the fear of
prosecution brought about by the Association, or perhaps the invoking of the
good graces of its standing committee as a medium of conciliation, or both
combined, that checked the headstrong in their eagerness to meet each other on
the field of honor. To its efforts, too, may have been due the action of the
legislature in passing the act signed by Gov. John Forsyth, on December 19,
1828, requiring that all civil and military officers appointed on and after July
1, 1829, should take an oath that they had not, since that date, been engaged in
a duel, either directly or indirectly, as principal or second, nor given a
challenge, or knowingly carried or delivered a challenge or message purporting
to be a challenge, either verbally or in writing.
The awakening of public opinion through the Association doubtless had a
salutary influence for a time, but like all other reforming agencies its
energies slackened with the passage of the years1, its influence ebbed, and
finally it passed from the stage of action. The last advertisement of its annual
meeting apparently is that for 1837, but it continued its existence for some
years after. It had served a good purpose during its brief life, but the period
that immediately followed its decease seems to have been marked by a
recrudescence of duelling, with a swamping of the carefully nurtured adverse
opinion to the custom, and a reaction that seems to indicate that there had been
a chafing at the bit of repression during the years of the Association's curbing
restraints. Its anniversary orators were all men of the highest position in the
professional, business and social life of Savannah. They were:
1828. Anthony Barclay, prominent merchant, British consul, and recognized as
one of the classical scholars of the city.
1829. Matthew Hall McAllister, prominent at the Georgia bar and in State
Democratic politics until he removed to California, where he was appointed
Federal judge by President Pierce. He was mayor of Savannah in 1837-39,
resigning from that office. A pen sketch of McAllister, published in the
Columbus Sentinel, in 1838, described him in this fashion: "A man apparently
about thirty-five years of age, stout and athletic in his person, with a
countenance that could not be mistaken for its expression of candor, magnanimity
and benevolence. His hair is a light auburn and worn in the style of a studioso,
fresh from the halls of old Cambridge. His face appears beardless. As an orator
he is graceful, fiery, fascinating, and in all things quite Shakesperean. As a
speaker he is fluent, persuasive, forcible, and being a ripe scholar his ideas
are clothed in language chaste, rich and copious."
1830. William Law, who had been Solicitor-General 1817-21, and succeeding to
the Judgeship of the Superior Court on the death of Judge Davies in 1829 served
until 1834. Until his death he was one of the leaders of the Savannah bar.
1831. Joseph Gumming, a leading merchant of his time and founder of the
First Presbyterian Church, Justice of the Superior Court and for some years
President of the Marine Fire Insurance Bank.
1832. George B. Gumming, brother of Joseph, successful merchant, and
prominent in the Independent Presbyterian Church.
1833. William Henry Stiles, Solicitor-General 1833-36, Congressman 1843-45,
minister to Austria and author of a "History of Austria." It was said of him,
"As an orator he was noted for his faultless rhetoric and education, and as a
gentleman for a grace and polish of manners not to be excelled." Judge Clark
wrote of him: "He was master of a soft, melodious and magnetic voice. His
speeches were all finished orations, and fell delightfully upon the ear and
understanding."
1834. William H. Williams, principal of the Chatham Academy, and a man of
scholarly attainments.
1835. Robert M. Charlton, Judge of the Superior Court 1835-37, United States
Senator 1852-53, well known Georgia author of his day. Of him Judge Richard H.
Clark wrote: "He was a lawyer and judge of the first ability, but great as that
was he exceeded it in the perfection of his private and personal character."
1836. S. T. Chapman, of the Chatham Academy.
1837. Rev. J. L. Jones1, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, then
located on Broughton street.
The type of men who consented to deliver the annual philippics against
duelling, their high standing in the community as leaders of opinion and as
directing forces in its public activities, shows the aroused conscience of
thinking men at a time when duelling was claiming its many victims throughout
the country.
Dr. John Gumming—first president of the Savannah Branch of the United States
Bank—was elected vice-president in 1830 to fill the vacancy caused by the death
of Judge Davies. William Bee became secretary and treasurer in 1834. In that
year Patrick Houstoun became chairman of the standing committee, he and Joseph
W. Jackson taking the places on the committee of Alexander Telfair and Joseph
Gumming.
Some years after the Association ceased its activities its re-written
records were placed with the Georgia Historical Society. In the course of time
they were forgotten, buried among the lumber that always accumulates. It was
only recently that in the cleaning up of the books and archives at Hodgson Hall
the dusty old volume was brought to light, making available information not
found in the newspapers of the period during which the Association labored. From
the minutes it appear that the Anti-Duelling Association had hardly begun its
noble mission of good will to men when its altruistic offices were effective in
preventing a meeting between two well known Savannahians, George Millen and
Robert W. Pooler. This was in May, 1827. The procedure adopted by the Standing
Committee is well shown in the report of its secretary, C. W. Rockwell, in a
copy of the letter sent in its name to Mr. Pooler:
"It has been intimated that there exists a difference between yourself and
Mr. George Millen, which it is apprehended may lead to serious results. As
members of that committee, Joseph Gumming, Anthony Barclay and Alexander
Telfair, Esqs., beg leave to propose to you that any differences which may exist
be submitted to an amicable reference—to gentlemen either in or out of this
Society, in whose integrity and honor you may have entire confidence. The
committee will be happy to hear from you in reply as soon as your convenience
will admit, and by their direction your communication will not be opened unless
there be one also from Mr. Millen. They will meet promptly at six o'clock this
afternoon, when it will be very desirable to have your reply. We believe you
will receive this in the spirit which dictates it, and not as an officious
interference."
The principals to this affair required a pledge that no legal steps would be
taken by the Association, either by prosecution or otherwise, before they would
consider its offices. The committee so pledged and Joseph Gumming and William
Law were appointed to wait on the friends or seconds, S. Philbrick and Col. M.
Myers, and obtain their consent to refer all differences to gentlemen of their
selection. As a result the arbitration of the trouble was placed in the hands of
W. C. Daniell and William Bee, neither of whom was then a member of the
Anti-Duelling Association, and by them an amicable settlement was reached. This
was the first feather in the cap of the Association and it was with a peculiar
satisfaction that in its first annual report the Standing Committee advised its1
members that "No duel has been fought in this vicinity since the Association's
formation and the committee have reason to believe that this is partly owing to
the influence of the Association." Again, in the second annual report, that for
1828, the committee likewise reported that there had been no duel fought between
Savannahians.
The meagre minutes of the next three years, 1829, 1830 and 1831, throw no
light on the duelling situation, except the inference, from the absence of
specific statements, that there were no meetings under the code, or that the
Association's work was quietly and effectively done and it was not deemed
necessary to make a permanent record of it. In August, 1832, though, the
Standing Committee moved to adjust a trouble between James Kerr and Mr. Guerard,
who had chosen as their seconds William McKay and A. Drysdale, and "were about
to settle a dispute by an appeal to deadly weapons." This affair was "adjusted
between the seconds in an amicable manner." In another trouble between two
citizens, though, the committee signally failed as a mediating influence,
through no fault of its own, and one of the most notable tragedies of that
period ensued.
This was also in August, 1832. Information was1 given to the secretary that
"An affair of honor existed between James Jones Stark and Dr. Philip Minis,"
with Charles Spalding acting as the friend of the latter and Thomas M. Wayne as
the friend of Stark. Letters were sent by the secretary at once to each of the
seconds, tendering the services of the Standing Committee and urging an
arbitration of the differences. Unfortunately Mr. Spalding did not receive the
letter which was left at his residence. As the minutes set forth, "About an hour
after the sending of these letters, Mr. Stark was attacked and slain with a
pistol at the City Hotel, on the Bay, by Dr. Minis. It is said that Mr. Stark
was in the act of sending a reply to the committee's letter when some
circumstance drew him into the bar room where he met his antagonist." "This
record is made," continued the report, "lest it should ever be enquired, where
was the Anti-Duelling Association and its Standing Committee on this occasion?"
"The Georgian" gave a very meagre reference to the tragedy: "A most
melancholy occurrence transpired in this city on Friday last (August 10). James
Jones Starke, of Glynn county, formerly of Savannah, was1 shot at the City
Hotel, by Dr. Philip Minis, through the breast, and almost instantaneously
expired. This is, indeed, a most unfortunate circumstance, which has cast a
gloom over the whole community, as both parties are extensively connected in
this city."
In those days a favorite amusement of the leading young men of the city was
playing quoits. A "Coit Club," as it was called, embraced many citizens of
prominence, and at its grounds on the outskirts of the city they gathered for
their sport. It was here that the difficulty occurred between Starke and Minis
that led to the shooting of the former. Prior to this there had been antagonism
existing between the two men, which only needed intensifying to furnish the
climax of a challenge. The additional provocation came in a personal allusion by
Starke, resented by Minis as insulting. With no apology forthcoming there was a
quick drift toward a duel, which was only prevented by the unfortunate meeting
between the young men and a resumption of the difficulty in a public place.
The City Hotel at that time was a famous little hostelry, given a most
enviable reputation throughout this section by the skilful management of Capt.
Wiltberger who, as a packet captain had learned to cater to the wealthy planters
and other travelers and had been induced by their assurances of support to quit
the water and become a Boniface. Its cellars held the finest vintages of Europe
and its whiskies and brandies were of unexcelled qualities. Its bar was the
rendezvous of the leading young men of the city and of all the country between
Savannah and the Florida line. It was a day when all drank and the Savannah
Temperance Society, headed by men of influence, sought merely to restrain an
intemperate use of intoxicants. One can readily perceive that the atmosphere of
this gathering place of the young bloods of the town was well calculated to
quickly inflame the angered feelings' of men already intent on a hostile
meeting. No record has come down of what passed between the principals, or what
part others took in the rencounter, but the eventual acquittal of Dr. Minis
seemed to prove that he had either acted on the defensive or had provocation
sufficient to justify his action.
Dr. Minis was arrested and indicted. The trial which came off in January,
1833, was a famous one in the annals of Chatham. Some of the most prominent
attorneys of the Savannah and Charleston bars were employed in the prosecution
and defence. The State was represented by Col. Joseph W. Jackson, Solicitor
General; Col. Seaborn Jones, of Columbus; Charles S. Henry and Joseph L.
Shaffer, Esqs. "The defence," the "Georgian" stated, "was ably conducted by
George W. Owens, John C. Nicholls, Richard R. Cuyler, John Millen and Robert M.
Charlton. Esqs., of this city, and James L. Petigru and Solomon Cohen, Esqs., of
South Carolina." The trial extended over six days; and "was closed with a lucid
and impartial charge to the jury from Judge Charles Dougherty, of the Western
Circuit. The jury returned into court after being absent two hours, and rendered
a verdict of 'Not Guilty'."
The disqualification of Judge William Law and the bringing here of Judge
Dougherty to try the case may have been due to Judge Law's connection with the
Anti-Duelling Association and the part he had been called on to play as a member
of its Standing Committee in seeking to reconcile various parties and prevent
duels.
In 1833 the Association's committee on mediation had a prospective meeting
between Surgeon Blane and Lieut. McKenzie, of the United States army, brought to
its attention. "The committee did not interfere as several gentlemen were taking
all the measures which circumstances required." The difficulty was adjusted
without exchange of shots. This year, too, in September, the committee
apparently for the first time resorted to the authorities to back its determined
efforts to prevent duelling in Chatham "having been bound to keep the peace
there," came from that state to Savannah to settle their differences with
duelling pistols. Letters preceded them, urging that steps be taken to prevent
the meeting. "The committee had warrants issued for them and placed in the hands
of the sheriff, but the principals were kept concealed and no arrests could be
made." "The next day a number of gentlemen interfered, the warrants were
suspended, and a friendly settlement ended the matter." The Anti-Duelling
Association properly felt that it had maintained its position before the
community and that the delay caused by its action had given others the
opportunity to intervene successfully.
Even as late as forty years after this, Carolinians coming to Savannah to
arrange for duels were checked by threats of arrest or the actual issuance of
warrants. As a rule, though, from 1820 to 1860, citizens of the lower part of
that state, seeking the opportunity outside of its borders to fight under the
code, rowed across the river and met on Tybee Island. The sand of this island
beach, close by the lighthouse or the old Martello tower, soaked up the blood of
many wounded Carolinians in the long period during which the code held dominion
over men's minds. It was no uncommon thing for boats to draw up at the upper end
of the island and discharge their human cargoes of principals, seconds, surgeons
and friends. A few minutes walk brought them to the long stretch of beach that
at that time extended far out into the ocean, the beach of to-day, old citizens
say, being but a shadow of what it was a half century ago. There, with no fear
of disturbance, the twenty or thirty paces were stepped off, the principals
placed in position, and the shots exchanged that were necessary to preserve a
sense of personal dignity and honor. The keeper of the light house was the sole
Georgia witness of many encounters of this sort. If wounded, the unfortunate
duellist was given attention as he lay on the beach, and then placed comfortably
as possible in his boat, and the negro slaves pulled lustily away at the oars to
return him to home and loved ones. If killed, as doubtless1 some were, although
the records of these meetings are not to be had in Savannah, the stiffening
corpse was a pitiable object as it lay covered in the bottom of the boat, gazed
at by sorrowing friends on the long journey across the water to the shore from
whence he had come an hour or two before in the full vigor of glorious manhood.
Georgia did not prosecute these visitors from a sister state, nor even seek
their extradition. As for Savannahians, Tybee Island was too inconvenient of
access and the memories of living men, and the written or printed records, make
scant allusions to meetings' there. Sometime before the war Col. William R.
Pritchard and Mr. Stoney met behind the Martello Tower, a picturesque feature of
the island removed some years ago, and fired at each other one time in a final
adjustment of some personal difficulty. The bullet grazed Stoney's leg, it is
said, a mere flesh wound, and his adversary escaped without injury. It was
always much easier to row across to Screven Ferry, S. C., or to visit one of the
plantations near the city, than to take the long trip to Tybee, so no stories of
Savannah duels cluster around the long stretch of sand from Lazaretto creek to
the Inlet.
In 1834 there was but one duel and that, the report showed, was without
serious injury to the parties. It was "so silently conducted that the Standing
Committee had not an opportunity to take the customary measures." Three affairs
of honor, though, came to its attention in 1835, in one of which, one of the
saddest in the story of duelling in Savannah, a young man of prominence met his
death. This was the meeting between James Morrison and Samuel Stiles on July 7.
Thomas Bourke was second for Morrison, while Stiles' brother acted in that
capacity for him. The news of the proposed duel came to Secretary Bee at night.
It was impossible for him to get the Standing Committee together at once to
exert its influence so he assumed the initiative and swore out warrants for the
principals and made arrangements for the committee to act later. Morrison and
Stiles were arrested and held to bail. "The chairman of the Standing Committee
assisted by Judge Law, Major Fannin, John W. Anderson and the secretary used
every effort to reconcile the parties and prevent the duel, but all in vain."
"The seconds would listen to no proposals, not even admit that they were acting
as such." Of the resulting tragedy Secretary Bee wrote in his report:
"On Tuesday morning, the 7th July, these deluded young men, with all the
feelings which false notions of honor and their own bad passions could excite,
and in disregard of all laws, whether human or divine, crossed the Savannah
river and fought on the South Carolina shore. Stiles was shot through the body
at the first fire and died on Wednesday morning, the 8th July."
In the trouble between Charles Rossignol and G. Gue-rard, soon after, the
committee "happily accomplished its purpose." Three months later, in October, it
once more exerted itself successfully, this time to prevent two of the city's
leading men, Thomas Bourke and Dr. Richard D. Arnold, from exchanging shots. The
minutes set forth the adjustment of this affair of honor in this fashion:
"Savannah, October 1, 1836.
"The Standing Committee being informed some days since that a challenge to
fight a Duel had been given by Mr. Thomas Bourke and accepted by Dr. Richard D.
Arnold; after many fruitless personal efforts to reconcile the parties, resolved
to address an official letter to the seconds, requesting their consent to
entrust the affair to the decision of disinterested gentlemen, not members of
the Association. This resolution was carried into effect, but did not answer the
desired end. The committee then resolved to make one more effort to prevent A
FASHIONABLE MURDER, and having obtained the co-operation of Messers. George
Schley, W. T. Williams and James Hunter, again urged a reconciliation upon the
seconds, who finally agreed to leave the matter with friends of their own
selection. This was done, and the quarrel was settled in a manner honorable to
both parties."
In 1836, the minutes tell us, there "was no duel fought in the vicinity of
this place." In 1837, "not one instance of a duel had occurred within the
jurisdiction of this Association, nor any case requiring its interposition,
plainly setting forth the fact that this degrading relic of barbarism has fallen
into disrepute and almost into disuse." With this year the minutes cease but
subsequent years showed that the secretary's happiness in prophesying the
downfall of the code was1 premature and without foundation. The Association
itself was quite evidently losing its force and its standing. It seemed to find
it impossible to secure an orator after this year, its attendance and membership
dwindled, and apparently it soon became almost moribund. For ten years, though,
it had served a useful purpose and perhaps saved several lives by its
interposition in prospective duels as well as by its agitation against the
practice.
Included in the membership of the Association during its life were over
sixty men of local prominence, including Daniel E. Adams, George W. Anderson,
Richard D. Arnold, William M. Baker. Anthony Barclay, Timothy Barnard, William
Bee, Horace Blair, B. Bourquin, E. Bourquin, R. C. Brown, James S. Bulloch,
William B. Bulloch, Rev. Benjamin Burroughs, Rev. Abiel Carter, S. T. Chapman,
Moses Cleland, George W. Coe, William Crabtree, Jr., George B. Gumming, Dr. John
Gumming, Joseph Gumming, Judge William Davies, Raymond P. Demere, Jacob
D'Lamotta, Abram B. Fannin, Elias Fort, Joseph George, Robert Habersham, Richard
Habersham, Martin Hathaway, William Hotchkin, Rev. Samuel B. Howe, Patrick
Houstoun, Joseph W. Jackson, Dr. George Jones, William King, R. King, Dwight
Lathrop, Judge William Law, A. O'Lyon, Matthew Hall McAllister, Joseph S. Pelot,
Almond Price, Dr. James Bond Read, J. B. Richmond, Charles W. Rockwell, Charles
Rossignol, Jacob Shaffer, Frances Sorrell, Archibald Smith, William H. Smith,
Benjamin Edward Stiles, William H. Stiles, Joseph Stokes, Alexander Telfair,
James M. Wayne, George White, Richard F. Williams, Stephen L. Williams, William
H. Williams, Rev. H. 0. Wyer, Thomas Young. Robert Barnwell, of Beaufort, S. C.,
was also a member.
Before the Anti-Duelling Association ceased its efforts to suppress duelling
by the force of an awakened adverse public opinion, one of the leaders of its
Standing Committee, Benjamin Edwards Stiles, had his principles put to a severe
test. This was in 1844, at a time when political opinions in Savannah were
strongly aroused and the town was divided into two hostile camps of almost equal
strength. President John Tyler had appointed Gen. Edward Harden Collector of the
Port, but the impression got abroad, perhaps designedly, that he would not
accept the office, although the appointment had been confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Stiles began circulating a petition for the appointment of William B.
Bulloch as Collector and sought among others the signatures of Joseph Fay and
his partner, Edward Padelf ord. A letter appeared in the "Republican" attacking
Stiles as "Seeking to forward his ends by injuring the Hon. J. M. Berrien." The
editor of the "Republican" refused to furnish the name of the author unless Mr.
Stiles "Intended to prosecute or procure personal satisfaction." Stiles replied
that he was well known to be a member of the Anti-Duelling Association, and "he
had never been governed by the laws of etiquette but by his own dictates of
right and wrong," and "what his action would be would depend on circumstances."
Fay's name was furnished and an acrimonious correspondence resulted, a final
letter being written by Fay on board the vessel on which he was leaving for the
North. On his return to the city Stiles assaulted him at South Broad and Bull
streets, using a cane. Fay grasped the cane, others interfered, and Fay sent
Stiles a challenge which Stiles "felt constrained to refuse."
"He cannot drive me from the principles which I profess into that school of
honor which supposes that an improper or base act can be cancelled by the flash
of a pistol or the glitter of a sword," wrote the Anti-Duelling committeeman.
"Mr. Fay makes upon my character a wanton and slanderous attack and then refers
me for reparation to the law or a duel. . . He has appealed to the public, and
there I am content to leave the matter, holding in my hands the proof of the
falsity of his- charge and the propriety of my own conduct. I cheerfully submit
to that tribunal the decision of the question raised, whether my opposition upon
principle to duelling should deprive me of the right to chastise insolence or to
defend my character or person when assailed."
Fay charged that Stiles was shielding himself behind his position as a
member of the Anti-Duelling Association. "The surprise which should properly
arise will be that he, professing the principles under which he now shelters
himself, could so far forget their obligations as to make an attack upon a
defenceless man, and so quickly recollect them when necessary to shield him from
the consequences of such ungallant and unworthy conduct . . . I pronounce his
position to be that of a poltroon and the refuge of a coward."
The correspondence, together with a number of corrobatory letters from
citizens, was published, but no further personal assaults and no duel resulted.
Stiles' stood fast to his position in antagonism to the "Code Duello."
Judge Law took a great interest in the Association and its work. He served
on its committee of conciliation for ten years. He was popular with the people
and admired for his sterling character. The Grand Jury, in 1830, in referring to
his election, stated that "No choice of the legislature could have been more
acceptable to the people, as none could have afforded a surer guarantee that
justice would be ably, promptly and impartially administered."
There is no incident in the story of duelling, though, which shows more
clearly its unmistakable hold on the popular mind, or its' appeal to the
individual whose sense of propriety had been grossly violated, than that of many
years later when Law, no longer a judge but a highly honored member of society
and of the bar, had recourse to it. No other incident likewise shows more
strikingly the pressure of opinion forcing an offending party to make an
honorable amende for his misconduct.
In this instance Judge Law felt called upon to resent an affront upon his
professional and personal character made in the court room in the hearing of a
case. Law was a man of purity of life and a keen sense of honor, and much loved
by the lawyers as a class for his uprightness, sincerity and unvarying courtesy.
One day an attorney gratuitously intimated that Law was unfair in his conduct of
a ease, somewhat offensive inferences being easily drawn from his comments.
Those were days when mere angry recriminations could not satisfy the sense of
injury from a reflection upon one's official or private character. Law, after
court adjourned, called on the offender for an absolute apology, in failure of
which he would require him to meet him on the duelling ground. The lawyer at
first was obdurate and declined to withdraw his remarks in open court as
demanded, so the challenge was passed and accepted. The duel was to be fought on
Monday. On Sunday Law, who was an elder in his church, attended services and
partook of communion. Monday he was ready for the exchange of shots that might
mean his death. But the other members of the bar, outraged by the conduct of the
offending lawyer, intimated so plainly to him that his refusal to apologize and
thereby force the former judge to a duel would mean professional and social
ostracism, that the culprit changed his attitude and when court convened begged
Law's pardon and withdrew his offensive strictures. Law accepted the apology and
it is said never thereafter showed the slightest animosity toward the lawyer in
question. Years later there was another stirring episode in the life of this
noted Savannahian.
It was at the time when the North and the South were preparing for civil
warfare. The secession movement in Georgia had been strongly combatted. In
Savannah the old Union party had been very powerful in the days when South
Carolina was leading the first secession movement and had remained a factor of
prominence in the political life of the community for many years thereafter.
Those in favor of breaking the ties that bound the sections together and
establishing a separate Southern confederacy were in the great majority and the
spirit of enthusiasm for the new cause was swelling daily. The State had not yet
withdrawn formally from the constitutional compact of the Union when a great
gathering of the citizens of Savannah was held to consider the situation and
determine its action. The meeting was called at the Masonic Hall, at the
northeast corner of Bull and Broughton streets, afterwards for many years the
home of the Oglethorpe Club, and now occupied by the Savannah Board of Trade.
Hundreds crowded into the spacious hall, while thousands filled the streets
surrounding the building. From the stage within and the veranda without the
orators —and Savannah then did not lack men of high eloquence— awakened
tumultuous applause by their pictures of the South's grievances and of the
brilliant future that awaited it in a Confederacy solely of its own creation and
control. It was a secession audience in the main, but it was felt and known that
there were yet many who grieved over the seeming necessity of dissolving the
Union for which their forefathers had fought, and who perhaps were not yet
convinced that it was inevitable. At such a crisis an appeal from one who had
been a pronounced Union man, and who enjoyed the esteem and confidence of all,
was calculated to weigh the balances solidly in favor of secession, and the
venerable Judge Law was called upon to speak in favor of the resolutions
endorsing the adoption of a secession ordinance by the State convention.
Miss Adelaide Wilson has told of the historic incident with so much forceful
charm that it may well be repeated in her language:
"Introduced by Francis S. Bartow, he came to the front of the platform, his
white hair and feeble step contrasting strangely with the stamp of intense
purpose in every lineament of his face and the fire of his eye. In few words he
sketched the wrongs of his section, and the unavailing effort that had been made
to right them, and then, concluding:
" 'Therefore,' he said, with a sweep of his arm, that smote upon the hearts
of his hearers like the grasp of a hand upon the strings of a harp,—Therefore,
as a Southern man, I give to these resolutions my absolute and unqualified
approval.'
"The effect upon the meeting was electrical; in an instant every man was on
his feet, every hat in the air, while a great shout went up that was like the
roar of a tornado. Some sprang to the windows crying to the crowd in the street,
'Judge Law has indorsed the resolutions,' and then cheer answered to cheer from
those within to those without, until exhaustion brought comparative quiet. The
resolutions were carried by acclamation."
One is loth to turn away from these old Savannah worthies of a half century
ago. Judge Law looms in another momentous incident before the curtain fell upon
his earthly career. It was in 1866. An Act of Congress provided, in effect, that
before Southern lawyers could resume practice in the Federal courts, or be
admitted to practice therein, they must by the most searching oaths, purge
themselves of kinship with the cause of their section in the war recently
closed. To Judge Law fell the duty of resisting such a barrier to men of honor
resuming their professional activities. He sought on motion to be permitted to
continue practice in the United States Court at Savannah, in which he had
practiced forty-nine years, without taking the lawyer's test oath, as it was
called. In defense of his right to do so he made a notable argument before Judge
Erskine, pointing out that he had taken the oath of allegiance to the Union
under the amnesty proclamation of President Johnson, that this carried a full
pardon with it, that the test oath was an ex post facto law inflicting pains and
penalties illegally and in violation of the Federal constitution, and that it
was therefore void. Ex-Governor Joseph E. Brown appeared with him and also
dissected the offending law in its relation to the constitution.
Henry S. Fitch, United States1 District Attorney, vigorously opposed the
motion. Even though he assailed the right of Judge Law to practice without
taking the test oath, he did not refrain from paying him a tribute that to-day
recalls the high position he held in the esteem of all who knew him. Said he:
"The pro-movent in this instance is one of those rare old gentlemen who
through all the trials and vicissitudes of half a century of professional labor
has, wherever known, commanded admiration for his legal lore and honor for his
private virtues."
Fitch's argument was characterized by Judge Erskine as of unusual
scholarship and brilliancy, but the judge held, nevertheless, that the Act
imposing the oath was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and
under his opinion Judge Law was not required to take and subscribe the oath. Not
long after, in a similar case from another State, the United States Supreme
Court likewise decreed the obnoxious statute unconstitutional.
To Judge Law belongs the honor of assuming an unflinching attitude of
stalwart opposition to the test oath and of willingness to incur the penalties
of an unalterable refusal to obey the drastic provisions of a statute passed by
the extreme radicals in Congress to degrade and punish the lawyers of the South.
The ante-bellum period is sometimes referred to as "The Giant Days of
Georgia." New occasions and new duties show forth the same crop of virile men.
Haloed by distance, the generations' that have passed from the scene of action
may seem greater in the attributes of glorious manhood, but if we recall the
spirit and the scenes of 1917-18 we may glimpse that a half century from now the
feeling with reference to Savannah men and women of this generation will be the
same with which we now look upon those who illustrated Georgia in the eras that
have become the province of the historian.
Additional Comments:
From:
ANNALS OF SAVANNAH
SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS
1733-1877
BY
Thomas Gamble
COPYRIGHT 1923
REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA
File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms417savannah.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/
File size: 43.8 Kb